What's your opinion on Orthodoxy?

[Cavaradossi]

You’d be hard pressed to find *unanimous *patristic consent on anything.

Which is why looking at history and praxis is important, in my opinion.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Which is why looking at history and praxis is important, in my opinion.

That’s very much true, yet even history gives mixed signals in the case of the Papacy. Nothing is really clear-cut.

 

[Trebor135]

Umm hello! There is the Extraordinary Form! So two options

Sure… but you originally wrote, “They can attend an Eastern Catholic DL”… and the Extraordinary Form is purely Latin Catholic.

 

[Trebor135]

You’d be hard pressed to find *unanimous *patristic consent on anything.

The Unanimous Consent of the Fathers is a phrase with a specific meaning in Catholic theology: what the large or total majority of Fathers taught. There must have been some basis for this phrase to be coined, with at least a few examples where such a concensus is to be found.

 

[Trebor135]

I don’t want to start listing “errors”. I see some things that are incompatible with my belief system and some things that are not. But I’m no expert. I am just learning.

That’s understandable.

I think the greatest error is not being in communion with Peter.

Assuming that being in communion with Peter (i.e., the pope) is equivalent to being in communion with the Church. Let’s leave that debate for another day though.

I believe an Eastern Catholic would be better able to respond to that question since they understand the Orthodox faith (presumably) and still chose to be Catholic. Why?

Indeed. A good question. One hopes ByzCathCantor and other Eastern Catholics will put in a word.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

The Unanimous Consent of the Fathers is a phrase with a specific meaning in Catholic theology: what most or all Fathers taught. There must have been some basis for this phrase to be coined, with at least a few examples where such a concensus is to be found.

The term is Consensus Patrum. Unanimous means that all agree. I’m not a native speaker of English, so forgive me if I’m mistaken.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The term is Consensus Patrum. Unanimous means that all agree. I’m not a native speaker of English, so forgive me if I’m mistaken.

Yes, the consensus patrem in Catholicism seems to be based more on having a majority than something unanimously believed.

 

[ConstantineTG]

So basically, if this is what the Orthodox wants, the Orthodox wants to in fact diminish the Pope’s Role as the Vicar of Christ and make him just another Bishop.

That would change the very nature of the Catholic Church.

Heaven forbid!

From the Orthodox point of view, the Roman Pontiff did change the very nature of the Catholic Church, and all they are asking is a return to orthodoxy.

Do you want to read the book I’m reading on The Primacy of Peter?

So then why should the Catholic Church reconcile? During a negotiation there are often concessions on both parts. Where are the Orthodox concessions?

You don’t want to make concession on the faith, right? For the Orthodox, a bishop ruling other bishops is unorthodox.

The Orthodox gets what they want and the Catholic Church gets nothing, except the possibility to celebrate mass together with the Orthodox?

They become orthodox

So no union until the Catholic Church becomes Orthodox, as defined by the Orthodox Church?

Seriously?

Please tell me if I am misunderstanding this.

Well, orthodoxy is the faith. How can one be Orthodox if one is not orthodox? If they themselves depart from the faith then they themselves have left the Orthodox Church.

But I like the book I am reading. The premise here is that even if the book is written by Orthodox writers, they see the Catholic position and Orthodox position as being wrong. They believe that the Catholics are overstating the primacy of St. Peter, and they believe the Orthodox have developed a phobia on everything that would point towards a papacy. So I think the Orthodox can budge a little bit, but don’t expect too much. Also you will see as pointed out earlier on this thread (or was it another thread) that Primacy in different levels in the Catholic Church have all been gone. There are still bishops who are Primates around the world, but it is now just an honorific title rather than one that actually has meaning. Usually it is given to the bishop who sits at the first seat of the Catholic Church in a given territory. In the Philippines, the last Primate was Cardinal Sin who passed away over a decade ago. That title isn’t even used by the Archbishop of Manila today.

 

[Trebor135]

No worries - we can always make more pierogis !

Great, I’ll help with the sour cream!

Mmm, this exchange is making me hungry.

I’m not the most impartial observer, being half-Hungarian myself. But God bless Eastern Europeans for their venerable cuisine.

PS: Pogácsa, gulyás, paprikás, and túróstészta (the names I’ve heard and used have been given here) are among those culinary items that everyone must savour at least once before they die.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I believe an Eastern Catholic would be better able to respond to that question since they understand the Orthodox faith (presumably) and still chose to be Catholic. Why?

Indeed. A good question. One hopes ByzCathCantor and other Eastern Catholics will put in a word.

Is there a word limit for this requested treatise?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

The key here may be in the timing.

If you notice, the first dogma of the two was declared in 1854AD, in the early part of the Pope’s reign. It was unprecedented, such a dogmatization by an individual’s fiat had never been done before, it had always ever before been done in Council. The retro-active recognition that he could have legitimately done such a thing on his own came toward the end of this same Pope’s long reign, in 1870AD, when he might have been thinking he would not be around much longer to defend it.

The most significant factor, I think, was the wishes of the world’s Catholic bishops. Even in infallibly dogmatizing the Immaculate Conception of our Lady, Pope Pius IX was acting quite collegially.

Many in the Curia were shocked when Blessed John XXIII had called a second Vatican Council not only because he was viewed as a “transitional Pope”, but also because many had come to believe that councils were no longer necessary as a consequence of Pastor Aeternus.

Indeed, and this sure was foolish of them. As Bishop Gasser said in his Relatio - and please note I’m paraphrasing here - “Some say councils will no longer be necessary. I answer: they will be necessary in the future as they were necessary in the past.”

To think otherwise is to betray the sort of thinking that’s inconsistent with Catholic teaching: the notion that Vatican I altered, added to, the Faith.

Which is why looking at history and praxis is important, in my opinion.

Definitely.

That’s very much true, yet even history gives mixed signals in the case of the Papacy. Nothing is really clear-cut.

Exactly. I find too many Catholics and Orthodox ignore this.

 

[TrueLight]

From the Orthodox point of view, the Roman Pontiff did change the very nature of the Catholic Church, and all they are asking is a return to orthodoxy.

Meh.

Do you want to read the book I’m reading on The Primacy of Peter?

Sure! I never turn down an an opportunity to learn. What’s the title and author?

 

[TrueLight]

Is there a word limit for this requested treatise?

Now I’m salivating.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Now I’m salivating.

Well, I wouldn’t want to disappoint!

But to be brief, let me throw something out there. For the “cradle” Catholics and Orthodox alike out there, do you feel as if your religion & spirituality are part of your very being?

For those who have sought other outlets for spiritual life, why were you attracted to a certain Church or religious community vs. others? Did you feel you made the right choice once you were in the new community for some time?

ECs, particularly Ruthenians in America, are hard to understand yet even harder perhaps to explain. To put is as simply as I can, we have a unique spiritual DNA, which includes a unique combination of markers - Catholic fidelity, Orthodox spirituality and extraordinary survival instinct (what my grandmother would have called our “Rusyn stubbornness”). Its hard to deny any one of those elements which, in combination, make up our identity in faith.

 

[MarkOgas]

No opinion for or against we are all here working toward our eternal life…

“If you feel deserve to judge the arrogant,
it’s a sign that you’re so far of humbleness.”

Have a nice day!

 

[Hesychios]

The most significant factor, I think, was the wishes of the world’s Catholic bishops. Even in infallibly dogmatizing the Immaculate Conception of our Lady, Pope Pius IX was acting quite collegially.

‘Collegially’ is an interesting assertion, especially when we see RC Traditionalists ranting about the ‘errors of collegiality’. Yet this is precisely the defense offered for the legitimacy of this practice!

The Pope listens to whomever he wants to listen to over a course of days, months or years and decides in his own time and on his own whether he has heard from enough people and if he wants to declare a dogma. People get it, they know how the system works and they know how to work it. Petitions for new dogmas are a regular occurance and some people think that’s normal.

That is not the same as bishops exposing the idea to vigourous free debate and serious inquiry in an open council, which is what the Seven Great Councils of the church were…

But let us assume for arguments sake that he was being truly collegial in his deliberations. He was not acting canonically and not acting traditionally. It was in fact a very liberal innovation.

In history the only men whom had ever before declared dogma on their authority alone were heretics. Some of their names are well known to us to this very day. The church had always defined after deliberation in Council, and btw tended to use apophatic reasoning, paring away at contention and cutting away at errors. Reducing wider speculations and narrowing what was taught, not crafting new ideas.

 

[TrueLight]

ECs, particularly Ruthenians in America, are hard to understand yet even harder perhaps to explain. To put is as simply as I can, we have a unique spiritual DNA, which includes a unique combination of markers - Catholic fidelity, Orthodox spirituality and extraordinary survival instinct (what my grandmother would have called our “Rusyn stubbornness”). Its hard to deny any one of those elements which, in combination, make up our identity in faith.

I think I understand.

Isn’t there a thread somewhere on the EC forum or here that asks for (name removed by moderator)ut on Orthodox who became Catholic? Not the new one. There’s an older thread.

That thread would probably give me some insight.

 

[Trebor135]

Is there a word limit for this requested treatise?

Fifty thousand will do.

 

[TrueLight]

I just want to say I am very much enjoying hanging out with all of you who are participating in this thread and learning from you.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

For those who have sought other outlets for spiritual life, why were you attracted to a certain Church or religious community vs. others? Did you feel you made the right choice once you were in the new community for some time?

I, a Roman Catholic, via adult conversion (RCIA) years & years ago, prefer the Eastern Christian Spiritual Life most. The Jesus prayer, the 7 Hours of daily prayer, prostrations, the frequent fasting, the many & long & beautiful set Prayers before Communion, I like visiting the monasteries, headcovering during prayer, reading the Prologue of Ohrid daily and reading the Bible every day slowly and prayerfully. I like how a prayer rule is used to measure my progress or lack there of reminding me how fallen and in need of a Savior I am.

In the Western Spirituality, I also love the availability of daily Mass and reception of Jesus in the Eucharist & Eucharistic Adoration. I enjoy meditation of the mysteries of the Rosary, but the Jesus Prayer speaks to my heart more. It’s in the CCC, so I know it’s okay.